So, and others who are making bots here. You may not realize, but those bots are pollution of the public timeline. At a MINIMUM, how about putting a content warning around the toots your bots make? I think an even better idea would be putting those bots on an instance of their own. You'll still be able to subscribe to it but you won't be spewing things on the PTL.
There was a thriving community before we got here, and we're trashing their space.

One thing I forgot, change your bots to posting as "Unlisted". That would also help a lot.
Maybe @Gargron could add a "Best Practices for Bots" section to the API docs.

@kurtm agree 100% but tbh this is what happens when you have a flagship instance of something that your encourage everyone to join, newcomers will bring their own culture and that's fine, the problem is that the public tl doesn't scale and gargron made the right call during down new members

@starhaze Gargron didn't encourage everyone to join this instance. That was all us newcomers. Gargron tried to be gracious but kept mentioning that folks should join other instances. Gargron turned off new users because we've almost right now this instance is burning to the ground and he can't put out the fire unless new gasoline stops arriving.

@kurtm ah my misunderstanding, that changes the context quite a bit

@kurtm @starhaze .social's front page previously did not make it at all clear that 1) other instances existed and 2) you could participate by joining them

@kurtm @sonya honestly I'm surprised it's worked as well as it has, seems like the problem got caught soon enough that we can deal with it going forward

@sonya @starhaze Correct. There are also potential disadvantages to being on different instance than one all the folks you wish to hang with are on.
Pretty sure Gargron was taken by surprise by the sudden explosive growth and spent all his energy on keeping the site going in the face of the onslaught.
When the first (much smaller) influx started, folks were boosting posts that linked to social norms and what everything was ande how it worked. That didn't scale.

@sonya @kurtm i think that the model of instances hosted by larger organizations is probably the one that will win
i mentioned this to others previously: infosec should probably have our own instance or two but we're all such giant passive aggressive shitheads that i wouldn't trust it.
I'd host my own if it could be done securely but lol I'd rather put that onto my .edu or some other group

@kurtm This seems like nice advice - bot wranglers could "promote" their bots' output with occasional boosts (assuming that public-ifies unlisted toots) and folks who care can follow at will

@kurtm Thanks for the reminder :-)

If you're aware of any projects that are working on the self-contained-bot-mastodonInstance pattern, I'd appreciate the links. It's kinda what federation is all about. Bonus points for politeness to you and the idea.

@bliving There's no reason not to be polite about it. Many folks think this is new-cooler-twitter, which isn't really what it is. I realize that and I didn't think about the timeline pollution thing. My wife was complaining about having to mute folks because bots had showed up and I realized bots would be polluting the timeline. Really, unless bots do the unlisted thing, the separate instance idea still means they are spewing all over the federated timeline.

@kurtm OK. Thanks for the tip on the unlisted thing.

I meant to make the point that not polluting the federated timeline was polite. But I guess that got mangled in twitter-ese. 140+ character apologies! :-)

Thank goodnes for 500 chars.

And keep up the good fight.


FYI, "How I set up a mastodon instance on AWS with ansible on ubuntu trusty"

non-docker actually-working advice
by @ceejbot

@bliving @ceejbot Nice. For me, software whose only instructions is "run the docker container" is a non-starter.

@kurtm to be fair, there were annoying bots before y'all even got here too

@nev Doesn't mean we should be unleashing lots of bots now. Things that are tolerable in small amounts aren't at large scale.

@timvb Yup. I forgot to include in that toot, but followed up with the fact bot writers should switch to unlisted toots.

@kurtm seems like a dedicated instance would be the perfect way to run bot accounts. so much so that “human” instances could even ban automated accounts

@saulhoward Combined with making them do their toots as unlisted, yes.
@muffinista even set up an instance for bots after my toots about doing so, because @muffinista is great.
Certain types of bots are actually banned on too, actually.

@kurtm Isn't an instance specifically for the running of bots? If folks don't want to spin up their own instances, maybe that one could be publicised a little better.

@tobascodagama Yes. It didn't exist when I made those toots. The toots were made early in the day yesterday. I actually tooted about after it was set up, but it's mainly the one toot that gets boosted.

@kurtm Haha, go figure. I'm new here, myself, so I just assumed that has been around forever. It's a very logical use of the federated instance architecture, after all.

@tobascodagama I find myself wondering if those couple tweets will be being boosted for months :)

@dezren39 Yup. Didn't exist when I made the toot. Was made shortly thereafter. It's later on in the thread.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The original server operated by the Mastodon gGmbH non-profit